Engineering Design Technology

Mr. Russell

Cardboard Chair Project

80 Points

Duration:

16 - 20 class periods

Primary Engineering Field(s) of Study: Mechanical/Structural Engineering, Human Factors Engineering

Secondary Engineering Field(s) of Study: Bioengineering, Biomedical Engineering

Introduction:

Engineers and designers work together to create chairs (office, dining, recliners, etc.) and seats (automotive, theater, etc.) that are functional, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing. Mechanical and Electrical Engineers provide the expertise to make a chair structurally safe with multiple degrees of articulation (manual and power). Human Factors Engineers provide expertise in human proportions (anthropometric data) so that a chair or seat can comfortably support the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male. Compromises must be made to accommodate a tremendously wide and complex range of weights, body measurements, physical limitations and psychological profiles. So next time you sit in a car or catch a movie, consider the many kinds of engineering and scientific careers that are always in high demand to create the products that we take for granted every day.

Your Challenge:

You and your teammate(s) will design and construct a cardboard chair that can support a 95th percentile adult male (225 lbs.). In addition, your chair must be ergonomically designed for comfort and aesthetically pleasing.

Rules & Constraints:

Your chair must be:

  • Be made entirely out of cardboard and glue
  • Have a seat and a back
  • The seat of the chair must be at least 16 inches from the floor (measured from the bottom of the seat). No exceptions.
  • If a 5th percentile female is sitting in the chair, her feet must rest comfortably on the floor (no stools).
  • The top of the back must be no less than 30”from the floor
  • Be portable (able to be carried through the classroom door)
  • Be comfortable to sit in for the full design range of body sizes.

Key Concepts:

  • The strength of any material can be increased ordecreased by changing its form
  • Weak materials can be strengthened throughfolding, creasing or other modifications
  • Load distribution is key in identifying areas of potential weakness

Key Terms:

  • Beam: a supporting member that transfers weight from one location to another
  • Center of gravity: the single point in an abject that gravity pulls on
  • Compression: a force that presses or pushes towards an object’s center
  • Ergonomics: the practice of designing objectsthat conform to the dimensions of the human body to maximize comfort
  • Load: weight that is carried by an object
  • Strut: a brace or support
  • Sway: to move back and forth
  • Truss: a triangular support

Chair Competition:

The team that earns the most competition points will win a bag a candy of their choice. Points will be awarded for the following categories:

  • Weight of chair (5 points for every pound lighter than the competition’s chair)
  • Ability to support a 95th percentile male (225 lbs.) (10 points)
  • Comfort as determined by the subjective opinion of a 5th percentile female (108 lbs.) (10 points)
  • Least amount of glue used as measured by the reduction of glue in the glue bottle (10 points)
  • Least amount of scrap cardboard (10 points)
  • Aesthetics = putting the “A” in STEAM as evaluated by art teacher Mrs. Houck (10 points)

Project Deliverables:

  • Each team member must produce a minimum of one dimensioned orthographic concept drawing (signoff required prior to initiating the build phase)
  • A fully constructed cardboard chair
  • Adetailed orthographic or isometric drawing of your finished chair(each student must construct one)
  • A group project report that covers the 7 steps of the engineering design process (one per group)

Grading:

  • You will be graded according to the attached rubric.

Project Rubric

Cardboard Chair Project

Team Grade

80 points Mr. Russell

Component / Sophisticated
(10 points per item category) / Developing
(10 points per category) / Insufficient
(0-5 points per category)
Teamwork / The team worked well together to achieve the project objective(s). / The team worked well together most of the time but occasional conflict or goofing around disrupted the team or the class. / The team did not work well together. Frequent conflict or goofing around disrupted the team or the class.
Engineering Design Process / The engineering design process was followed closely. / One or two steps of the engineering design process were not followed. / Three or more steps of the engineering design process were not followed.
Subject Knowledge / The deliverable demonstrated knowledge of the course content. The deliverable also demonstrated evidence of extensive research effort and depth of thinking. / The deliverable demonstrated some knowledge of the course content. The deliverable demonstrated evidence of limited research effort and/or initial thinking about the topic. / The deliverable did not demonstrate knowledge of the course content. The deliverable provided little evidence of research effort or depth of thinking about the topic.
Report and Supporting Materials / The report follows the engineering design process. The report and supporting materials (usually drawings) are well organized and clearly written. The underlying logic was clearly articulated and easy to follow. Sentences were grammatically correct and free from errors. Report was type-written, was neat and free of damage, and was submitted with all materials attached. / The report followed most of the components of the engineering design process. The report and supporting materials (usually drawings) were organized and clearly written for the most part. In some areas the logic and/or flow of ideas was difficult to follow. Sentence structure and grammar were acceptable with few errors that did not hinder the reader. Report was type-written and submitted with all materials attached. Some evidence of poor handling. / The report followed little-to-no components of the engineering design process. The deliverable lacked overall organization. The reader had to make considerable effort to understand the underlying logic and flow of ideas. Poor grammar and/or spelling errors made it difficult for the reader to interpret the text in places. Report was not type-written, did not have all materials attached, or reflected poor handling.

Individual Grade

40 points

Component / Sophisticated
(20 points per category) / Developing
(10 points per category) / Insufficient
(0 points per category)
Effort / The individual exhibited superior effort and was inclusive of all team members. / The individual exhibited acceptable effort and was inclusive of all team members. / The individual exhibited poor effort and/or excluded other team members from helping out.
Behavior / The individual showed model behavior including respect for the teacher and classmates. / The individual goofed around occasionally but was respectful of others. / The individual goofed around frequently and/or showed a lack of respect for others.

Teacher Resources

SAE Anthropometric Reference Data